Plaintiff (Attorney Im Young-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Government Employees Pension Service

June 29, 2017

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap73290 decided March 16, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of compensation for survivors’ compensation rendered to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for adding the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion under paragraph (2) below, and thus, it cites it as it is by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (other grounds asserted by the court in the appeal of the Plaintiff do not differ significantly from the contents of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the first instance court’

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) there was a sudden change in the work due to a significant difference in the division and intensity of traffic control and traffic survey service; (b) the Deceased worked for July 2015 for 23 hours to 59 minutes, 59 minutes, 59 hours to 47 minutes in August, 201, 8 hours to 89 hours to 47 minutes in September, 10, and 47 hours in October; (c) the number of traffic accidents received by the ○○ Police Station from July 2015 to November 2015 was the greatest number of traffic accidents received by the ○○ Police Station; and (d) the ○○ Police Station was maintained from September 26, 2016 to the fourth school system, but at the time when the Deceased worked, the cause of the Deceased’s death and death was caused by the deceased’s work.

According to the above argument, according to the testimony of non-party 2 of this court witness, although it is difficult to view that the traffic survey team's duties are more and more and more than those of the traffic survey service than those of the traffic survey team's duties, it is difficult to view that there is a substantial difference between the work division and the strength, or there is no other evidence to prove that there is a sudden change in the work division, ② there is insufficient objective evidence to acknowledge that the deceased worked more than those of the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, ③ even if there are many cases of receiving traffic accidents from July 2015 to November 1, 201, it is difficult to view that such circumstance alone was excessive compared to the ordinary work hours of the public officials of the same occupation or the public officials of the same occupation, ④ there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion that the deceased's work division and the deceased's work division were considerably insufficient.

B. The plaintiff asserts that even if the deceased was suffering from a normal disease or a health condition, the deceased's diversity or diversified rapidly due to the cause of the traffic accident investigation team's duties, so it should be recognized as a disease or injury caused by official duties pursuant to Article 29 (2) [Attachment 2-2] Item 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act.

However, the main text of Article 29(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Officials Pension Act provides, “A disease or injury caused by a public official’s self-injury shall not be deemed a disease or injury incurred in the course of performing his/her official duties” under the proviso of the same Article, and provides, “In any of the following cases, where the self-injury was committed while his/her normal perception ability, etc. is clearly deteriorated, the disease or injury caused by such self-injury shall be deemed a disease or injury incurred in the course of performing his/her official duties.” In each subparagraph, where a public official who received or is receiving medical care due to a mental illness caused in the course of performing his/her official duties or in the course of performing his/her official duties does self-injury in the state of mental disorder caused by such disease or injury; 2. Where a public official receiving medical care due to a disease or injury incurred in the course of performing his/her official duties does so

However, there is no medical basis that the deceased did not receive medical care for the reason that he/she was unable to receive medical care for the reason that he/she did not do so due to public duties or on other grounds related to public duties. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sung-won (Presiding Judge)

1) The health conditions of ordinary diseases, diseases, or aggravations, and the diseases and injuries significantly aggravated due to competition with the performance of any of the following duties, and the continued performance of a special duty in a special environment where the occurrence or aggravation of a disease is highly likely. (c) The continuous performance of a special duty, other than the ordinary duty, is a special duty.